Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Gladys Gershenfeld filed by the Department of the Navy (the
Agency) under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
The Union filed an opposition to the Agency's exceptions.

The Arbitrator ruled that the Activity violated the
collective bargaining agreement when it failed to assign WG-10 riggers to
weekend overtime work and allowed shipfitters to move heavy metal plates, work
normally performed by riggers. As a remedy, the Arbitrator awarded 16 hours of
overtime at the rate received by WG-10 riggers and directed the Union to
determine the distribution of the money.

For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the
award violates management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of
the Statute. Accordingly, we will set aside the award.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The events leading to the grievance occurred at the
Activity during the overhaul of an aircraft carrier. The grievants are riggers
assigned to Shop 072. Their work consists of moving large and heavy objects
such as metal plates into position for installation by shipfitters and
welders.

The riggers protested the assignment of overtime to
shipfitters in Shop 011 on the third shift on January 18, 19, and 26, 1986. The
overtime work, which the riggers claimed they should have performed, involved
the removal of deteriorated sections of metal and replacement of those sections
with patches of metal plate.

The grievance was submitted to arbitration on the
following issue:

Did management violate the collective bargaining
agreement, including Article X, by failing to assign overtime work to Shop 072
Riggers for the dates January 18, 19, and 26, on the third
shift?

If so, what is the appropriate remedy?

Award at 3. The Arbitrator found that because the Union
presented no evidence to substantiate its claim for overtime on January 18 and
26, the award would address only the events of January 19, 1986.

Article X and Article XIX of the agreement
state:

Article X, Overtime

Section 1. Overtime assignments shall be distributed
fairly among qualified employees. It is agreed that the following shall apply
in the assignment of overtime work to employees in the Unit:

a. When it becomes necessary to continue work on a
particular job on an overtime basis, the employee assigned to such overtime
work will be the one who has been working on the same job during his regular
shift hours.

b. In making all overtime assignments, supervisors will
take into consideration such factors as the availability of employees, the
organizational assignment of employees, knowledge of the particular type of
work involved, and health/fatigue indications.

. . . . . . .

Section 13. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed as imposing an obligation on the Employer to assign
overtime.

Article XIX, Trade Jurisdiction

. . . . . . .

Section 4. The Employer agrees to avoid the assignment
of work contrary to established trade lines if by so doing an employee's safety
will be endangered.

Award at 4.

The Activity contended that there was no need for
overtime for riggers on the third shift on January 19 because the metal plates
to be installed during that shift had already been moved into place by the
riggers on the previous day. The Union contended that the riggers were needed
on the third shift because a heavy plate was moved a considerable distance by
the shipfitters. The Arbitrator found that two shipfitters moved the plate and
that moving the plate was work normally performed by riggers. Award at
8.

The Arbitrator also found that the metal plates to be
installed normally were put into position before the overtime work was to be
performed. However, the Arbitrator ruled that in this instance there was an
unanticipated "need to move large, heavy material a substantial distance."
Award at 11. The Arbitrator noted that although the move did not create an
accident, injury or reportable safety violation, "the particular plate movement
was of the type normally performed by Riggers and could have endangered other
employees in the area, contrary to the provision of Article XIX (4)."
Id.

The Arbitrator found that "[w]here Riggers were available
for overtime assignment on the third shift and where their absence caused the
Shipfitters to perform the work at issue here, . . . overtime pay is an
appropriate remedy." Award at 12. She concluded that "if they had been
available, two Riggers would have appropriately been asked to handle the move
carried out by the two Shipfitters. Under these circumstances, the remedy is
limited to compensation that would have been paid to two WG10 Riggers working
eight hours on the third shift on January 19, 1986." Id. at
12-13.

The Arbitrator made the following award:

1. Management violated the collective bargaining
Agreement, including Article X, by failing to assign Shop 072 Riggers to work
performed by Shop 011 Shipfitters on January 19, 1986 on the third
shift.

2. Therefore, the remedy shall be eight hours of pay
each that would have been earned by two WG10 Riggers if they had been assigned
to the third shift on January 19, 1986.

3. In the absence of specific information on which
grievants would have been assigned to work on the weekend of January 19, 1986,
the Union shall determine the appropriate distribution of the above
compensation.

Award at 13.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. Agency's Exceptions

The Agency contends that the award conflicts with
management's right to assign work. The Agency contends that this is a case
involving a dispute over "work ownership," and "the Authority has consistently
held 'work ownership' restrictions to conflict with management's statutory
right to assign work." Exceptions at 4. The Agency maintains that under section
7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute, the right to assign work includes the right to
determine which employees will receive particular work assignments, without
regard to particular trade designations. The Agency contends that the overtime
work involved in this case consisted of the full range of duties involved in
the installation of metal plates and was not limited to the one task of moving
a plate and that management determined that there would be no need for riggers
on the third shift because the metal plates to be installed would already be in
position and would require only minor movement which could be accomplished
safely by the shipfitters.

In support of its position, the Agency cites American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1858 and U.S. Army Missile
Command, The U.S. Army Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment Support
Group, The U.S. Army Information Systems Command-Redstone Arsenal
Commissary, 27 FLRA 69 (1987) (Provision 11) (U.S. Army Missile
Command). In U.S. Army Missile Command, the Authority held that a
provision which stated that only qualified maintenance personnel could perform
repair work on machinery while in operation was nonnegotiable because it
interfered with the right to assign work. The Agency contends that the award in
the instant case violates the right to assign work by requiring the Activity to
assign riggers to move metal plates on the third shift even though management
had decided that there would be no need for riggers to perform work on that
shift. The Agency also states that this is not a case "where the Arbitrator has
enforced a negotiable 'appropriate arrangement'" under section 7106(b)(3) of
the Statute. Exceptions at 8.

The Agency contends that the award is contrary to the
Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, because the Arbitrator did not make the
required findings that a specific grievant was: (1) entitled to the overtime
assignment; (2) qualified to perform the assignment; and (3) available and
willing to work the overtime assignment. Further, the Agency maintains that
there is no basis for awarding two riggers 16 hours of overtime rather than pay
for the actual time required to move the plate. Finally, the Agency argues that
there is no provision in the Back Pay Act for creation of a pool of backpay to
be distributed by the Union.

B. Union's Opposition

The Union denies that the Arbitrator's award violates
management's right to assign work. The Union states that section 7106(b) of the
Statute authorizes the Agency "to negotiate 'on the numbers, types, and grades
of employees or positions assigned to any . . . work project, or tour of duty .
. . and means of performing work.'" Opposition at 1. The Union contends that
the Activity has chosen to negotiate the contract provision under which work
will not be assigned across established trade jurisdictions if there is a
danger to employees and argues that the Activity is bound by its agreement. The
Union asserts that because the Activity has chosen to negotiate that agreement
provision, the Agency cannot rely on negotiability cases such as U.S. Army
Missile Command as a basis for finding the award deficient.

The Union contends that management did not evaluate the
qualifications of employees required for the third shift and that management
erred when it decided that riggers would not be required. The Union argues that
the circumstances show that riggers were required and that there was danger
present when shipfitters rather than riggers moved the heavy metal plate.
Therefore, the Union argues, there was a violation of the agreement and the
Activity cannot "ignore safety provisions of its own contract." Opposition at
5.

The Union denies that the award is contrary to the Back
Pay Act. The Union contends that the Arbitrator gave the Union the
responsibility for distribution of the backpay because the Activity failed to
maintain records which would enable the Arbitrator to identify the riggers who
should have been assigned the overtime.

IV. Analysis

We conclude that the Arbitrator's award is deficient
under section 7122(a) of the Statute because it is inconsistent with
management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). An arbitration
award may not interpret or enforce a collective bargaining agreement so as to
improperly deny an agency the authority to exercise its rights under section
7106(a) of the Statute. See, for example, American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 2924 and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, 32
FLRA 160, 163 (1988). We find that by interpreting and enforcing the parties'
collective bargaining agreement to require the assignment of plate-moving
duties to riggers, the Arbitrator's award improperly denied management its
right under section 7106(a)(2)(B) to assign that work to welders and/or
shipfitters.

Management's right under section 7106(a)(2)(B) to assign
work includes the right to determine the employees who, or positions which,
will be assigned a particular type of duty. SeeNational Federation
of Federal Employees, Local 1442 and Department of the Army, Letterkenny Army
Depot, 30 FLRA 373, 374 (1987). Arbitration awards which limit the
assignment of work to particular employees and preclude the performance of that
work by other personnel are deficient because they conflict with management's
right to assign work. SeeSouthwestern Power Administration and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1002, 22 FLRA 475
(1986).

As indicated above, the Arbitrator interpreted Article
XIX as requiring the Agency to assign plate-movement duties to riggers so that
the safety of other employees would not be endangered. This interpretation,
however, precludes the assignment of those duties to other employees.
Therefore, the Arbitrator's award improperly restricts the Agency's right to
assign plate-movement duties to employees other than riggers and directly
interferes with management's right to assign work.

We do not agree with the Union that the award enforces a
provision which concerns the numbers, types and grades of employees assigned to
a tour of duty or a work project within the meaning of section 7106(b)(1).
Neither Article X (Overtime) nor Article XIX (Trade Jurisdiction) concerns the
Agency's decision whether to assign riggers to a tour of duty or a work
project. Rather, those provisions concern the assignment of work on an overtime
basis and the "assignment of work contrary to established trade lines[.]"
Article XIX, Section 4.

We do not consider whether the Arbitrator's award in this
case constitutes the enforcement of an appropriate arrangement under section
7106(b)(3) of the Statute. There is no indication in the Arbitrator's award
that the Union claimed before the Arbitrator, or presented evidence which would
support such a claim, that Article XIX, section 4 is enforceable as an
appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute. Moreover,
although the Agency argued in its exceptions that Article XIX, section 4, did
not constitute an appropriate arrangement, the Union did not address the
Agency's argument in its opposition and did not argue to the Authority that the
article constitutes an appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3). In
short, there is nothing in the record which demonstrates that the Union raised,
or attempted to raise, the issue of the enforceability of Article XIX, section
4 as an appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3). SeeVeterans Administration, Veterans Administration Medical Center,
Leavenworth, Kansas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
85, 34 FLRA 528 (1990) (the Authority did not address the issue of whether
an agreement provision was intended to be an appropriate arrangement under
section 7106(b)(3) because the union made no claim that the provision was
enforceable as an appropriate arrangement). CompareThe Washington
Plate Printers Union, Local No. 2, I.P.D.E.U. and U.S. Department of the
Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 31 FLRA 1250, 1256 (1988) (the
union argued, and the Authority agreed, that an agreement provision constituted
an enforceable appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3)).

Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that
the Union raised the applicability of section 7106(b)(3), the Union has
provided no evidence in that regard which would enable us to assess the effect
of Article XIX, section 4 on management's rights or the benefits to employees
which might result from that provision. Any conclusions we might reach in this
connection would be purely conjectural. SeeAmerican Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Department of Education Council of AFGE Locals
and Department of Education, 34 FLRA 1078, 1085-86 (1990) (union failed to
create a record on which the Authority could determine whether a proposal
constituted an appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3)).

We conclude that the award is deficient under section
7122 of the Statute because it is contrary to law and we will set the award
aside. In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to address the Agency's
exception that the award is contrary to the Back Pay Act.